Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying. So why would any rational company not try to use this business model? Your AAA game gets to be $59.99 + $0.99 download, and your competitor's game is $60.00. Sort by price ascending makes you the top result, but you actually get $0.99 more money with each copy sold.

You are right that legislation is the only answer to curb this abuse. Consumers fall for it hook/line/sinker. Companies can't resist free money.

> Everyone seems to love this, or at least, they didn't stop flying.

Nobody "loves" it. They just have to put up with it because even for people who know what they're doing with flight searches, the only way to dig into all that dark pattern shit is to have fifty browser tabs open comparing the fine details of different flights.

If it was possible to, say, compare all those up-charges up front using flight search tools, I'm sure you'd see a lot more people choosing the slightly more expensive tickets.

Which is also why the hotel where people stay when they're visiting friends has free wifi, and the hotel next to the convention center does not.

To some extent, this is quite rational. You're in pain for like 2 hours because the seat pitch is now 4 inches. But then you get off the flight and never think about it again. The fact that flights include things that people don't need to have just made air travel more accessible, though less fun.

I hate the nickel and diming but it does make things more accessible in general.

Every time a company finds a way to make the product worse but increase profits, they will do it, and all other companies will eventually have to do it in order to remain competitive. It's an inevitable force that is built into the so-called free market. Nearly every product available today is worse and/or more expensive than an otherwise comparable product 10 years ago.

Mark my words, bookmark this comment and come back in 10 years. If these subscriptions turn out to be profitable, then in 2033, every car manufacturer will have functionality locked behind monthly subscriptions. And people will buy them because they have no other choice besides not buying a car. There will be no way to vote with your wallet--you'll just have to abstain with your wallet.

This additionally acts as a nice A/B test; you sell the same car and get data on whether or not people would pay $6000 more for it to be faster.

I reflexively hate this, but it seems so rational to me.

There is a large group of people who only want the cheapest flight possible, then there is a decent sized group who want more than basic economy, but don't want to pay for first class. This is basic customer segmenting.

You rent seats on planes. Some seats are more desirable than others, so you pay more to rent those. You rent access to their storage space. You rent access to their services. The seat doesn't come with food, so if you want the food they have on the plane, you buy that from them. If you don't, someone on the next flight will.

When you buy a car, ostensibly you own the car. It's your property. A company should not be able to disable features unless you pay them not to, indefinitely, on something you own.

You can’t really fly and not take luggage with you, for example.

But there are more than 4 car companies. There's enough competition to stop this kind of horseshit, which is a fact Mary Barra seems not to recognize.

“Complains about air pollution, but still breathes the air”, amirite? Or perhaps there’s another explanation for the dynamic. Because I can tell you that my game-buying habits have changed as a result of your parallel example.

Perhaps! But a big part of the problem is airlines have near monopolies on domestic routes. I want to fly non-stop to Charlotte, my only choice is American, I want to fly to Atlanta, my only choice is Delta, for the same price as a flight to Europe. Some monopoly enforcement, or laws requiring more airport diversity might fix this without micromanaging prices or services.

Besides, if you want to apply that axe put it against the people making those decisions to conduct business in that fashion. If your first thought is that it doesn't make sense to because then that person will be outcompeted then consider that it makes even less sense to hold people with zero agency in that decision responsible.

Indeed it is a systemic issue and I don’t claim to have a systemic solution. Even the personal solution is pretty shaky, considering the ubiquity of these practices. Oh well, it’s better than giving in.

In the Mercedes case, they ship the car with the more-powerful motor already installed in it. The cost of it has been paid already. They just artificially limit it through software unless you pay extra for it.

At least in this case Mercedes is offering a one-time flat fee, which would at least be somewhat sorta vaguely like paying extra at the time of sale for a more-powerful engine rather than whatever is stock. Still kinda slimy, but at least not absolute highway robbery, like the subscription plan is.